Obviously where/location matters a lot

Hello, my people.

At $15 an hour, how long is it going to take you to save up for that down payment?

— Irami Osei-Frimpong (@IramiOF) March 20, 2022

Should the local high school girl that works at Rocco's Pizza as a greeter make more than $15 an hour?

Or should her hourly wage be based on PRODUCTIVITY?

Ohh you don't believe adults with adult bills make 15 an hr

How much do minimum wage laws increase the cost of living for everyone?

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

going4roses said:

---

Ohh you don't believe adults with adult bills make 15 an hr

---

I never said that.
Your words. Not mine.

But who's the misguided fool claiming that people making $15 an hour ARE IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO OWN A HOME IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Yeah, maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour so that the 18 year old kid just out of high school IN AN ENTRY LEVEL POSITION can afford to make a down payment on a home.

Get real.

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

DiabloWags said:

---

Should the local high school girl that works at Rocco's Pizza as a greeter make more than $15 an hour?

Or should her hourly wage be based on PRODUCTIVITY?

---

Her parents are grateful she's getting work experience.
Her parents are glad she's busy getting work experience rather than getting in trouble with boys, or obtaining a mental condition as a result of surfing Instagram.

No minimum wage for 16 year olds!!!!

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

---

What do you think was the point of my posting that?
What was your point in posting your link?
If you think I'm financially illiterate, please be specific.

DiabloWags said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Ohh you don't believe adults with adult bills make 15 an hr

---

I never said that.
Your words. Not mine.

But who's the misguided fool claiming that people making $15 an hour ARE IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO OWN A HOME IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Yeah, maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour so that the 18 year old kid just out of high school IN AN ENTRY LEVEL POSITION can afford to make a down payment on a home.

Get real.

---

Yes. Make it $40 per hour.
That way, a Big Mac will cost $20.
And since nobody is going to pay $20 for a stupid Big Mac, McDonalds will all go out of business, and THAT will cure the obesity epidemic!

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

---

What do you think was the point of my posting that?
What was your point in posting your link?
If you think I'm financially illiterate, please be specifi

---

So you are the guy who posts we won the football game because we had the most first downs. There have so many threads on why marginal tax rates are not an indicator of tax burden versus effective tax rates, that you would think you would have a clue by now. Apparently not. Is this specific enough for you?

I guess I just see the humanity vs the economics (can one be be humane and be a capitalist?)…

Not just the numbers and theories supposedly at work, but the end result on the human race. what I see and deal with(others dealing with) on daily basis is race to bottom slavery (again)

I guess when the AI /robots are full deployed to the work force then what happens.

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

---

What do you think was the point of my posting that?
What was your point in posting your link?
If you think I'm financially illiterate, please be specifi

---

So you are the guy who posts we won the football game because we had the most first downs. There have so many threads on why marginal tax rates are not an indicator of tax burden versus effective tax rates, that you would think you would have a clue by now. Apparently not. Is this specific enough for you?

---

You didn't answer my question.
But I get that you are wanting to turn the conversation from top marginal tax rate to effective tax rate.
Fine, Run with that. Why attack me?

No, not specific enough.
I don't know what you are trying to say.

And no, I never have said that we won because of first downs.

going4roses said:

---

I guess I just see the humanity vs the economics (can one be be humane and be a little capitalist?)…

Not just the numbers and theories supposedly at work, but the end result on the human race. what I see and deal with(others dealing with) on daily basis is race to bottom slavery (again)

I guess when the AI /robots are full deployed to the work force then what happens.

---

When robots are employed,
-Per capita productivity increases.
-Displaced workers are able to be employed in other areas.
These are overall positives for economic gains for humans.

As for who gets the economic gains of said productivity increases? That all depends on tax rates and other public policies. And that was my point in posting my chart on tax rates.

It's clear that as the marginal tax rate has decreased (combined with an increase in various use taxes), incomes wealth gaps have increased during this era of lower top marginal tax rate. That's not a good thing, as Roses is pointing out with this thread.
As Cal professor Emmanuel Saenz has lectured, the US now has, effectively, a Flat Tax. If this adverse effect (wealth gaps) is what WIFE is referring to, whereas a flat tax (along with commonplace deductions most often used by the wealthy) increases an Effective Tax Rate, GREAT! (Unfortunately, he appears too tired of typing to say so, simply pointing to "other" threads that have addressed it. Please forgive if this reader hasn't memorized those threads - apparently, too tired of First Down victories to have done so.)

I don't believe a companies/wealthy will give damn about poor people … do they now ?

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

---

What do you think was the point of my posting that?
What was your point in posting your link?
If you think I'm financially illiterate, please be specifi

---

So you are the guy who posts we won the football game because we had the most first downs. There have so many threads on why marginal tax rates are not an indicator of tax burden versus effective tax rates, that you would think you would have a clue by now. Apparently not. Is this specific enough for you?

---

You didn't answer my question.
But I get that you are wanting to turn the conversation from top marginal tax rate to effective tax rate.
Fine, Run with that. Why attack me?

No, not specific enough.
I don't know what you are trying to say.

And no, I never have said that we won because of first downs.

---

Like it or not, top marginal tax rate vs effective tax rate is relevant. When the top marginal rate was at its highest, so were the many means of avoiding taxes through readily available tax deductions. Therefore the effective tax rate then is similar to the effective tax rate today.

going4roses said:

---

I don't believe a companies/wealthy will give damn about poor people … do they now ?

---

That's why we elect people who will write laws to protect for the common good.

Mmm kay

Cal_79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

---

What do you think was the point of my posting that?
What was your point in posting your link?
If you think I'm financially illiterate, please be specifi

---

So you are the guy who posts we won the football game because we had the most first downs. There have so many threads on why marginal tax rates are not an indicator of tax burden versus effective tax rates, that you would think you would have a clue by now. Apparently not. Is this specific enough for you?

---

You didn't answer my question.
But I get that you are wanting to turn the conversation from top marginal tax rate to effective tax rate.
Fine, Run with that. Why attack me?

No, not specific enough.
I don't know what you are trying to say.

And no, I never have said that we won because of first downs.

---

Like it or not, top marginal tax rate vs effective tax rate is relevant. When the top marginal rate was at its highest, so were the many means of avoiding taxes through readily available tax deductions. Therefore the effective tax rate then is similar to the effective tax rate today.

---

I'm not sure what the implication here is. What are you trying to say?
Can you present me a graph of effective tax rate for various income brackets?

Here is Gabriel Zucman's graphic which I've been working off of. It shows that effective tax rate is FLAT.
This leads to increased wealth disparities.

" In 2019, 700,000 people left California while others migrated in. People earning less than $100k are leaving. People making more than $100k are moving into the state from the US & abroad. 47% of the entire nation's homeless live in California."

going4roses said:

---

" In 2019, 700,000 people left California while others migrated in. People earning less than $100k are leaving. People making more than $100k are moving into the state from the US & abroad. 47% of the entire nation's homeless live in California."

---

Amazing isnt it?
From the most liberal state in the Nation.

PS. Your 47% number is wrong.
We are home to 27% of the nation's homeless population (see link below)

going4roses said:

---

I don't believe a companies/wealthy will give damn about poor people … do they now ?

---

CALIFORNIA has the highest income and sales tax rates in the nation.

Yet, hardworking "wealthy" taxpayers continue to remain in CALIFORNIA. Moreover, highly educated, skilled, professionals making over $100,000 continue to move into the state. These taxpayers appear to be comfortable with the current liberal leadership in the State that continues to tax them more and more, while redistributing that money towards the poor.

I've noticed that you constantly put up these overly simplistic "one-liners" that have nothing to do with current policy or reality when it comes to helping the poor, the mentally ill, and/or the homeless. Here in CALIFORNIA, the "wealthy" are the one's that are primarily footing the bill. But for some reason, that basic fact is conveniently ignored by you. I guess it doesnt fit your narrative.


The 2020-21 Budget: The Governor's Homelessness Plan (ca.gov)

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/corporate-profits-drive-60-of-inflation?s=r

Hmm…

DiabloWags said:

---

going4roses said:

---

I don't believe a companies/wealthy will give damn about poor people … do they now ?

---

CALIFORNIA has the highest income and sales tax rates in the nation.

Yet, hardworking "wealthy" taxpayers continue to remain in CALIFORNIA. Moreover, highly educated, skilled, professionals making over $100,000 continue to move into the state. These taxpayers appear to be comfortable with the current liberal leadership in the State that continues to tax them more and more, while redistributing that money towards the poor.

I've noticed that you constantly put up these overly simplistic "one-liners" that have nothing to do with current policy or reality when it comes to helping the poor, the mentally ill, and/or the homeless. Here in CALIFORNIA, the "wealthy" are the one's that are primarily footing the bill. But for some reason, that basic fact is conveniently ignored by you. I guess it doesnt fit your narrative.


The 2020-21 Budget: The Governor's Homelessness Plan (ca.gov)

---

"These taxpayers appear to be comfortable with the current liberal leadership in the State that continues to tax them more and more, while redistributing that money towards the poor."

Is this one of the one-liners that you accuse others of making to fit your narative?

concordtom said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

---

What do you think was the point of my posting that?
What was your point in posting your link?
If you think I'm financially illiterate, please be specifi

---

So you are the guy who posts we won the football game because we had the most first downs. There have so many threads on why marginal tax rates are not an indicator of tax burden versus effective tax rates, that you would think you would have a clue by now. Apparently not. Is this specific enough for you?

---

You didn't answer my question.
But I get that you are wanting to turn the conversation from top marginal tax rate to effective tax rate.
Fine, Run with that. Why attack me?

No, not specific enough.
I don't know what you are trying to say.

And no, I never have said that we won because of first downs.

---

Like it or not, top marginal tax rate vs effective tax rate is relevant. When the top marginal rate was at its highest, so were the many means of avoiding taxes through readily available tax deductions. Therefore the effective tax rate then is similar to the effective tax rate today.

---

I'm not sure what the implication here is. What are you trying to say?
Can you present me a graph of effective tax rate for various income brackets?

Here is Gabriel Zucman's graphic which I've been working off of. It shows that effective tax rate is FLAT.
This leads to increased wealth disparities.

---

Here's how marginal and effective tax rates differ.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/15/heres-how-marginal-and-effective-tax-rates-differ.html

calpoly said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

going4roses said:

---

I don't believe a companies/wealthy will give damn about poor people … do they now ?

---

CALIFORNIA has the highest income and sales tax rates in the nation.

Yet, hardworking "wealthy" taxpayers continue to remain in CALIFORNIA. Moreover, highly educated, skilled, professionals making over $100,000 continue to move into the state. These taxpayers appear to be comfortable with the current liberal leadership in the State that continues to tax them more and more, while redistributing that money towards the poor.

I've noticed that you constantly put up these overly simplistic "one-liners" that have nothing to do with current policy or reality when it comes to helping the poor, the mentally ill, and/or the homeless. Here in CALIFORNIA, the "wealthy" are the one's that are primarily footing the bill. But for some reason, that basic fact is conveniently ignored by you. I guess it doesnt fit your narrative.


The 2020-21 Budget: The Governor's Homelessness Plan (ca.gov)

---

"These taxpayers appear to be comfortable with the current liberal leadership in the State that continues to tax them more and more, while redistributing that money towards the poor."

Is this one of the one-liners that you accuse others of making to fit your narative?

---

You're clearly not very bright.

Or do you really think that the record $75 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET SURPLUS that CALIFORNIA enjoyed a year ago during a pandemic induced economic collapse came off the backs of the poor and lower class?

California announces whopping $75 billion budget surplus (yahoo.com)

Reality check.

I would post a reply if I thought it would help...Roses and CT ( constantly traumatized) make the Smothers brothers look like intellectuals. Professor Irwin Corey would have a field day trying to satirize Roses & CT. Most folks would be relieved iff they just admitted they were not serious . Many therapy sessions would be canceled. As for Wigs, if someone were to offer to pay him $100,000 to say something nice about anyone, I'm sure he would hesitate...Not that there is anything wrong about hesitation.

helltopay1 said:

---

As for Wigs, if someone were to offer to pay him $100,000 to say something nice about anyone, I'm sure he would hesitate...Not that there is anything wrong about hesitation.

---

The OT board is largely filled with losers and misfits.
And then there are the lonely old men like you who remind me of Archie Bunker.

I say nice things about people all the time.
Just not from this cesspool of Trumpanzees and Bernie fans.

PS. I dont need the $100,000

Lol

Cal_79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

---

What do you think was the point of my posting that?
What was your point in posting your link?
If you think I'm financially illiterate, please be specifi

---

So you are the guy who posts we won the football game because we had the most first downs. There have so many threads on why marginal tax rates are not an indicator of tax burden versus effective tax rates, that you would think you would have a clue by now. Apparently not. Is this specific enough for you?

---

You didn't answer my question.
But I get that you are wanting to turn the conversation from top marginal tax rate to effective tax rate.
Fine, Run with that. Why attack me?

No, not specific enough.
I don't know what you are trying to say.

And no, I never have said that we won because of first downs.

---

Like it or not, top marginal tax rate vs effective tax rate is relevant. When the top marginal rate was at its highest, so were the many means of avoiding taxes through readily available tax deductions. Therefore the effective tax rate then is similar to the effective tax rate today.

---

I'm not sure what the implication here is. What are you trying to say?
Can you present me a graph of effective tax rate for various income brackets?

Here is Gabriel Zucman's graphic which I've been working off of. It shows that effective tax rate is FLAT.
This leads to increased wealth disparities.

---

Here's how marginal and effective tax rates differ.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/15/heres-how-marginal-and-effective-tax-rates-differ.html

---

Yeah, I've known this for decades.
But nobody has said what their policy proposal about effective rate would be. So, I still am lacking understanding of why bring it up.
???

helltopay1 said:

---

I would post a reply if I thought it would help...Roses and CT ( constantly traumatized) make the Smothers brothers look like intellectuals. Professor Irwin Corey would have a field day trying to satirize Roses & CT. Most folks would be relieved iff they just admitted they were not serious . Many therapy sessions would be canceled. As for Wigs, if someone were to offer to pay him $100,000 to say something nice about anyone, I'm sure he would hesitate...Not that there is anything wrong about hesitation.

---

I was going to give you a star for your observation of insult factory that Wags has been today.

But then, oh the irony, you began your own post with an insult of me and Roses.

Thanks for the laugh!

concordtom said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

---

What do you think was the point of my posting that?
What was your point in posting your link?
If you think I'm financially illiterate, please be specifi

---

So you are the guy who posts we won the football game because we had the most first downs. There have so many threads on why marginal tax rates are not an indicator of tax burden versus effective tax rates, that you would think you would have a clue by now. Apparently not. Is this specific enough for you?

---

You didn't answer my question.
But I get that you are wanting to turn the conversation from top marginal tax rate to effective tax rate.
Fine, Run with that. Why attack me?

No, not specific enough.
I don't know what you are trying to say.

And no, I never have said that we won because of first downs.

---

Like it or not, top marginal tax rate vs effective tax rate is relevant. When the top marginal rate was at its highest, so were the many means of avoiding taxes through readily available tax deductions. Therefore the effective tax rate then is similar to the effective tax rate today.

---

I'm not sure what the implication here is. What are you trying to say?
Can you present me a graph of effective tax rate for various income brackets?

Here is Gabriel Zucman's graphic which I've been working off of. It shows that effective tax rate is FLAT.
This leads to increased wealth disparities.

---

Here's how marginal and effective tax rates differ.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/15/heres-how-marginal-and-effective-tax-rates-differ.html

---

Yeah, I've known this for decades.
But nobody has said what their policy proposal about effective rate would be. So, I still am lacking understanding of why bring it up.
???

---

If you've known this decades, curious about your issue with it? Why does there have to be a policy proposal?

Talking about financial problems in society and taxation problems, I'm watching last week's 60 Minutes about Transportation in the USA.

We recently passed a big infrastructure bill in order to rebuild failing bridges and such.

Our economic portfolio is not just rich people vs poor people. It's also people vs projects.

(Or vs the environment or foreign aid or... take your pick)

Here's the vid:

Cal_79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How much was the top marginal tax rate at its height?
What year was that?
How much is it now? (Hint: 37%)

---

In an effort to educate the financially illiterate:

https://cnb.cx/3cxVVhR

---

What do you think was the point of my posting that?
What was your point in posting your link?
If you think I'm financially illiterate, please be specifi

---

So you are the guy who posts we won the football game because we had the most first downs. There have so many threads on why marginal tax rates are not an indicator of tax burden versus effective tax rates, that you would think you would have a clue by now. Apparently not. Is this specific enough for you?

---

You didn't answer my question.
But I get that you are wanting to turn the conversation from top marginal tax rate to effective tax rate.
Fine, Run with that. Why attack me?

No, not specific enough.
I don't know what you are trying to say.

And no, I never have said that we won because of first downs.

---

Like it or not, top marginal tax rate vs effective tax rate is relevant. When the top marginal rate was at its highest, so were the many means of avoiding taxes through readily available tax deductions. Therefore the effective tax rate then is similar to the effective tax rate today.

---

I'm not sure what the implication here is. What are you trying to say?
Can you present me a graph of effective tax rate for various income brackets?

Here is Gabriel Zucman's graphic which I've been working off of. It shows that effective tax rate is FLAT.
This leads to increased wealth disparities.

---

Here's how marginal and effective tax rates differ.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/15/heres-how-marginal-and-effective-tax-rates-differ.html

---

Yeah, I've known this for decades.
But nobody has said what their policy proposal about effective rate would be. So, I still am lacking understanding of why bring it up.
???

---

If you've known this decades, curious about your issue with it? Why does there have to be a policy proposal?

---

All you two are doing, in my opinion, is making mention that there is a difference between top marginal rate and effective rate, which can vary widely based upon source of income, investment deductions, and tax avoidance strategies.

But what's your point?
Rewriting the tax code to eliminate these tax avoidance strategies?

i'm pretty sure everybody in the world has a below-average IQ, except for me